I have deleted several posts from this thread which seemed to me (and to those who reported them to me) to be both gratuitously offensive and irrelevant. The posters know who they are and must consider themselves warned.

Jeremy

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Nikon is delivering a mirrorless clone of the A7R3, which is a known quantity, a good camera with lots of features and a decent price point that is not substantially more advanced than anything else. Nikon fans now have a mirrorless option but nothing else has changed - why are people so polarised?

You don't need to own all five cameras - just the right one for your particular situation.

So your claim is that for the full range of a photographerís needs, a single one of those alternatives is as good as it better than a Z7 or Z6 for everything? I am skeptical. One case is the many people who prefer the Nikon lens options as a whole, adapted plus Z-mount, expect Nikon in the mid-term to bring that lens system advantage to Z-mount, and want some of the advantages of the new EVF system. Advantages like precise manual focussing and video performance and handling while using the eye-level VF. Plenty of first time buyers in this format will be satisfied in the short term with one or two Z mount lenses and trust Nikon to deliver more options by the time they are ready to buy.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Nikon is delivering a mirrorless clone of the A7R3, which is a known quantity, a good camera with lots of features and a decent price point that is not substantially more advanced than anything else. Nikon fans now have a mirrorless option but nothing else has changed - why are people so polarised?

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Nikon is delivering a mirrorless clone of the A7R3, which is a known quantity, a good camera with lots of features and a decent price point that is not substantially more advanced than anything else. Nikon fans now have a mirrorless option but nothing else has changed - why are people so polarised?

My contention still stands that the less meaningful the differences between brands become in real-world use, the more heated the exchanges between "competing" brand acolytes tend to be. The need for tribe-based conflict is a weird, and often self-defeating, aspect of human nature.

My contention still stands that the less meaningful the differences between brands become in real-world use, the more heated the exchanges between "competing" brand acolytes tend to be. The need for tribe-based conflict is a weird, and often self-defeating, aspect of human nature.

I find it funny that one of the most offensive possible comment to a photographer is "oh, you must have a really good camera", but then when you read threads like this, it looks that unless you have such and such feature, or use this particular brand / model, you will not be able to take good images

My contention still stands that the less meaningful the differences between brands become in real-world use, the more heated the exchanges between "competing" brand acolytes tend to be. The need for tribe-based conflict is a weird, and often self-defeating, aspect of human nature.

-Dave-

Reminds me of an old saying about academia: "The reason that arguments between faculty members at universities are so heated is because they matter so little."

Other pieces of info:- the Z7 and Z6 are produced in Sendai like the D5, and are 75% automated vs 50% on the D5,- I saw MTF charts for the 50mm f1.8 S (canít find the link now) and they seem outstanding,- large retailers in Japan are still committing delivery on availability date for the Z7/FTZ/24-70 and 35mm f1.8 S

Other pieces of info:- the Z7 and Z6 are produced in Sendai like the D5, and are 75% automated vs 50% on the D5,- I saw MTF charts for the 50mm f1.8 S (canít find the link now) and they seem outstanding,- large retailers in Japan are still committing delivery on availability date for the Z7/FTZ/24-70 and 35mm f1.8 S

Cheers,Bernard

So it's an 850 sensor in performance. Which probably means it's an 850 sensor except for some of the peripheral circuitry and focus aids. And Sony still seem to be selling themselves a marginally better sensor than they sell to customers. No surprise there either.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Nikon is delivering a mirrorless clone of the A7R3, which is a known quantity, a good camera with lots of features and a decent price point that is not substantially more advanced than anything else. Nikon fans now have a mirrorless option but nothing else has changed

Edmund,

Out of curiosity, do you think that technical progress is still possible in photography? Is there a possibility that new and better cameras/lenses could still be released, or have we seen it all with the Sony G Master on the a7rIII?

Out of curiosity, do you think that technical progress is still possible in photography? Is there a possibility that new and better cameras/lenses could still be released, or have we seen it all with the Sony G Master on the a7rIII?

Cheers,Bernard

I assume you're being tongue in cheek here, and will add an observation. In addition to collecting/using historical camera gear, I also collect historical photos (1850-1940), and antique photography journals/annuals. I remember reading an editorial in one from the 1920s that progress with lenses had gone as far as it could go. And at that time they were probably right. Lenses were then limited to five or six elements at most due to light loss & internal reflections. Within ten years, Zeiss figured out that coated lenses dramatically reduced the light loss and entirely new lens designs came about with much more complexity. But, that would all have to wait until after WW2 was over.

Which camera do I prefer--the Nikon DSLR or a Sony mirroless? Well, tomorrow I'm going out to photo a steam threshing bee. I'm taking two cameras. One is a gorgeous Century Camera Co. Model 44 (c.1905) shooting 4x5 dry plates, and a spiffy Kodak Special No.2 (c.1914) with Optimo shutter & TT&H anastigmat lens shooting ISO 50 b&w roll film. I'm hoping to get some very unique photos!

A bit tongue in cheek, but reading some comments here it seems to be a given that, regardless of the lack of any test data, the Z system and its lenses could not possibly deliver images that are technically any better than what we have today.

To me, assuming that there is no brand like/dislike coming at play, this is akin to saying that one believes that progress has ended.

That 5 years of additional thinking time from one of the leading optics company has zero chance of delivering improvements. I find such a flat entropic view of the world depressing... everything is the same anyway...

It seems pretty obvious to me that the #1 design priority of Sony for the FE mount has been camera and lens compactness. This is why they have come up with a mount that is common for APS-C and FF bodies. They been able to design very good lenses (the best ones not compact any more btw) with these constraints and they claim they are 100mp ready.

Then comes Nikon who designs 5 years later a new system around a new mount with the clearly stated #1 priority to design the best possible lenses and a mount aligned with this objective.

I donít understand why we should doubt the ability of Sony and Nikon to achieve their respective objectives?

The photographers who priviledge compactness should go Sony and those priviledging image quality should go Nikon.

And yes, this is obviously an over simplication, but those trying to have a fair conversation will have understood the idea.

Whatís so shocking here? There is no all mighty universal system out there.

A bit tongue in cheek, but reading some comments here it seems to be a given that, regardless of the lack of any test data, the Z system and its lenses could not possibly deliver images that are technically any better than what we have today.

Looks to be a near-identical sensor to the D850. So the sensor, at least, is not likely to deliver better images.

Quote

That 5 years of additional thinking time from one of the leading optics company has zero chance of delivering improvements. I find such a flat entropic view of the world depressing... everything is the same anyway...

They're not being compared to equipment from five years ago. They're being compared with equipment today, because that's what they're competing against. Nikon don't have five years additional development time over these, and less experience making mirrorless cameras. So, yes, they'd obviously be better than equipment from five years ago. But not better than Canon/Sony/Sigma equipment from today.

Out of curiosity, do you think that technical progress is still possible in photography? Is there a possibility that new and better cameras/lenses could still be released, or have we seen it all with the Sony G Master on the a7rIII?

Cheers,Bernard

Absolutely. Progress will happen. But the ones who are pushing hardest at the moment are the phone guys and Google with computational photography, and Sony with their cellphone customers financing basic sensor research. Nikon doesn't have a huge research capital to build on when it comes to the camera bodies, although they do have considerably optical engineering and user-side experience, and goodwill.

The new Nikon has a new mount, and is an electronic finder camera and a has a movable sensor , and I think at this point Nikon was VERY WISE not to take any more risks and incur technological debt by incorporating more innovation, and hopefully releasing a stable next-gen platform that bring it to the technological point where Sony was with the A7RII.

You keep baiting me to say this is a bad product; but it isn't. It's a necessary technological stepping stone for a company-wide transition to mirrorless. Sony had less of a problem here because they are the original developers of much of this tech, some in a video context like the electronic viewfinders, and had time to experiment as they have other businesses.